The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts has denied injunctive relief requested by two bankruptcy trustees seeking to stay the prosecution and settlement of shareholder actions proceeding against various former officers and directors of a bankrupt corporation. In re Enivid, 2007 WL 806627 (Bankr. D. Mass. Mar. 16, 2007).

On March 20, 2007, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. of America v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., case docket no. 127 S.Ct. 1199 (2007), that federal bankruptcy law does not preclude an unsecured creditor from obtaining attorney’s fees authorized by a valid prepetition contract and incurred in postpetition litigation. In reaching this decision, the Supreme Court overruled the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal’s ruling in Fobian v. Western Farm Credit Bank (In re Fobian), 951 F.2d 1149 (9th Cir.

In Motorola, Inc. v. Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (In re Iridium Operating LLC, 478 F.3d 452 (2d Cir. 2007), the Second Circuit held that the most important factor for a bankruptcy court to consider in approving a pre-plan settlement pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 9019 is whether the settlement’s distribution scheme complies with the Bankruptcy Code’s priority scheme. Prior to this ruling, courts in the Second Circuit generally considered the following factors when approving settlement agreements:

The Superior Court of New Jersey has ruled that Congoleum's pre-packaged bankruptcy plan settling asbestos claims is not enforceable against its insurers. The court found that the plan was unreasonable and that, under the terms of the plan, insurance obligations are not triggered because it was not shown that Congoleum was "legally obligated to pay" the claimants who would receive payments. Congoleum Corp. v. Ace American Insurance Co., No. MID-L-8908-01 (N.J. Super. Ct. May 18, 2007).

The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed on May 18, 2007, the Delaware Chancery Court’s dismissal of a breach of fiduciary duty suit brought by a creditor against certain directors of Clearwire Holdings Inc. North American Catholic Educational Programming Foundation, Inc. v. Gheewalla, C.A. No. 1456-N (May 18, 2007).

Whether a creditor may assert a direct claim against corporate directors for breach of fiduciary duty when the corporation is insolvent or in the so-called “zone of insolvency.”

Answer: No.

The district court in Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company, et al. v. American Capital Equipment, et al., No. 06-0891 (U.S. Dist. Ct. W.D. Pa. May 11, 2007), affirmed that Skinner Engine Company's insurers have standing to move to dismiss Skinner's chapter 11 bankruptcy case and to challenge its bankruptcy plan. However, the court also affirmed the bankruptcy court's denial of the insurers' motion to dismiss the bankruptcy case.

In a case of apparent first impression, U.S. District Court Judge Alan S. Gold recently held in In re Wellington Vision, Inc., No. 06-80446, __ B.R. ___, 2007 WL 762398 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 20, 2007), that a franchisee in chapter 11 cannot assume (i.e., retain) a franchise agreement that grants a nonexclusive trademark license, leaving the franchisor free to terminate the agreement.

In a groundbreaking, and somewhat surprising decision, the Delaware Supreme Court recently held that creditors of a company that is either in the zone of insolvency or actually insolvent cannot, as a matter of law, directly sue directors of the company for breaches of the directors’ fiduciary duties.

In the ongoing bankruptcy action involving the Congoleum Corporation (Congoleum), the bankruptcy court refused to approve a settlement and policy buyback between Congoleum and one of its insurers, ruling that the lack of creditor support for the settlement and the lack of evidence regarding the volume and type of claims covered by the settlement precluded the court's ability to approve the settlement. In re Congoleum Corporation, No. 03-51524 (Bankr. D.N.J. May 11, 2004).

When a retail business becomes a debtor in bankruptcy, it often decides to trim its operations by closing some of its retail stores. This strategy inevitably leaves the debtor with unnecessary leases. Instead of simply rejecting the leases, retail debtors often assume the agreements and assign them to other entities. The assumption and assignment of the unnecessary leases may allow a debtor to avoid potentially significant rejection damage claims from landlords.